BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 235 of 2015

Date of Institution: 16.04.2015

Date of Decision: 08.03.2016  

Sanjeev Mehra son of Satpal Mehra, resident of House No. 2219/10, Gali Jaswant, Katra Dulo, Amritsar. 

Complainant

Versus

1. Samsung India Limited, having Head Office at 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th Floor, Tower C, Vipul Tech Square, Gold Course Road, Gurgaon Sector 43, Gurgaon-122002.
2. Bahadur Chand & Co. situated at Hall Bazar, Near Congress Bhawan, Amritsar through its authorized representative/ prop/ partner.   

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Subash Anand, Advocate

              For Opposite Party No.1: Sh.Preeti Mahajan.

              For Opposite Party No.2: Exparte.

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member  

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Sanjeev Mehra  under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased one refrigerator bearing Model No.RT54H6679SL  of Samsung Company from Opposite Party No.2 which is authorized dealer of Opposite Party No.1, vide invoice No.TF181 dated 21.4.2014 with one year warranty and by availing finance facility. After 6-7 months, the complainant observed that the said refrigerator was not working properly and hence, the complainant made complaint to Opposite Party No.2 in this regard and then the engineer of Opposite Party No.2 checked the refrigerator and made some repair work. The refrigerator worked for some time properly, but again started giving trouble. Complainant again went to Opposite Party No.2 with complaint regarding the working of the refrigerator, but the same could not be eradicated by the engineers of Opposite Party No.2. Lastly on 11.4.2015 vide reference No. 8463836004, the complainant again approached Opposite Party No.2 regarding his complaint and asked to either remove the defect or replace the refrigerator as the same was within warranty period, but Opposite Party No.2 flatly refused to adhere to the genuine request  of the complainant. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to replace the refrigerator of the complainant with new one of same model. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, Opposite Party No.1 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the complainant has lodged complaint with Opposite Party No.1 for the first time on 12.4.2015 after more than 11 months of purchasing the refrigerator in question on 21.4.2014. Accordingly, service engineer visited the premises of complainant and checked the refrigerator and found that there was gas leakage problem which can be duly rectified by refilling the same. But the complainant for the reason best known to him did not allow the visiting service engineer to rectify the said defect and has now filed the present complaint alleging totally false facts. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. None appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2, so Opposite Party No.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 1.6.2015 of this Forum.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C12, affidavit of Smt.Rajni Mehra Ex.C12 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
5. Opposite Party No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Chitranjan Sahoo, Senior Manager Ex.OP1/1, affidavit of Sh.Rohit Kapoor Ex.CW1/A, report Ex.CW2/A and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1.
6. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of ld.counsel for both the parties.
7. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that  the complainant purchased one refrigerator bearing Model No.RT54H6679SL  of Samsung Company from Opposite Party No.2 manufactured by  Opposite Party No.1, vide invoice dated 21.4.2014 Ex.C2 for a sum of Rs.63,000/- by obtaining financial facility from Union Bank, Amritsar Main Branch, Amritsar vide statement Ex.C5 to Ex.C11,  with one year warranty. Complainant submitted that after 6-7 months, the complainant observed that the said refrigerator was not working properly. He made complaint to Opposite Party No.2 regarding the same. The engineer of Opposite Party No.2 checked the refrigerator and made some repair work. The refrigerator worked for some time properly, but again started giving trouble. Then on 11.4.2015, the complainant approached Opposite Party No.2  vide reference No. 8463836004 for repair and requested Opposite Party No.2 either to remove the defect or replace the refrigerator as the same was within warranty period, but Opposite Party No.2 could not repair the refrigerator of the complainant nor replaced the same with new one. Ld.counsel for the   complainant  submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
8. Whereas the case of the Opposite Party No.1 is that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands rather he has concealed the material facts. The complainant never approached Opposite Party No.2 with any complaint regarding the refrigerator in question.  The complainant has lodged complaint with Opposite Party No.1 for the first time vide reference No. 8463836004 on 12.4.2015 after a lapse of period of 11 months 21 days, when the warranty of the refrigerator in question of one year was going to expire on 21.4.2015. Accordingly, service engineer of Opposite Party No.1 visited the premises of complainant and checked the refrigerator and found that there was gas leakage problem which can be duly rectified by refilling the same. But the complainant for the reason best known to him did not allow the visiting service engineer to rectify the said defect, rather he filed the present complaint alleging totally false facts. Opposite Party No.1 has taken plea in their written version that the complainant could not point any manufacturing defect in the refrigerator in question nor he examined any expert or any mechanic to prove that there is any manufacturing/ inherent defect in the refrigerator in question. So, the complainant at the time of arguments filed an application for additional evidence to examine expert Mr.Rohit Kapoor regarding the functioning of the refrigerator in question. Said application was allowed by this Forum and the  complainant tendered into evidence one affidavit of Sh.Rohit Kapoor Ex.CW1/A who proved his report on 7.10.2015 Ex.CW2/A. Ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.1 submitted that this witness was not qualified in refrigeration trade and he was not holding any diploma or degree regarding the refrigeration mechanic. Apart from this, this witness alleged hat he visited the house of the complainant for the first time on 1.10.2015 to check the Samsung Double Door refrigerator in question and found that there was a fault  of underground pipes which could not be repaired by him. So, it is manufacturing defect. Ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.1 submitted that firstly, this witness is neither an expert in refrigeration trade nor he stated about his  experience as mechanic of repairing the alleged equipments or refrigerator. Moreover, he checked the refrigerator of the complainant on 1.10.2015 when the warranty of this refrigerator has already expired on 21.4.2015 i.e. after a period of 1½ years of the purchase of the refrigerator. All this shows that the refrigerator worked properly for more than one year i.e. during the warranty period. Moreover, the complainant did not allow the engineer of Opposite Party No.1 to rectify the defect in the refrigerator in question as there was only the gas leakage problem and same could be rectified by refilling the gas in the refrigerator. Ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.1 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 qua the complainant.
9. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant purchased one refrigerator in question from Opposite Party No.2 manufactured by Opposite Party No.1 on  21.4.2014 vide invoice Ex.C2 by availing financial facility from Union Bank, Amritsar Main Branch, Amritsar as per statement of account Ex.C5 to Ex.C11. The complainant himself admitted this fact that there was one year warranty of the refrigerator in question. The complainant purchased this refrigerator on 21.4.2014 vide invoice Ex.C2. As such, the warranty of this refrigerator was upto 21.4.2015. The complainant submitted that after 6-7 months, he observed that the said refrigerator was not working properly and he made complaint to Opposite Party No.2 regarding the same and the engineer of Opposite Party No.2 checked the refrigerator and made the refrigerator of the complainant fully functional after some repair. Whereas Opposite Party No.1 has categorically denied that the complainant made any such complaint after 6-7 months of the purchase of refrigerator in question. The complainant could not produce any evidence in this regard and he could not give reference number of any complaint allegedly made by him with Opposite Party No.2 nor complainant examined any person from Opposite Party No.2 in this regard nor the complainant could produce any record  from Opposite Party No.2 that he made any complaint to Opposite Party No.2 regarding any defect in the refrigerator in question. The complainant further submitted that thereafter the refrigerator again started giving trouble and he made  complaint to Opposite Party No.2 on 11.4.2015 vide reference No. 8463836004, but the Opposite Party No.2 did not repair the refrigerator in question. Opposite Party No.1 has categorically stated that the complainant for the first time lodged complaint with Opposite Party No.1 on 12.4.2015 vide reference No. 8463836004 i.e. after more than 11 months (11 months 21 days) of purchasing  the refrigerator in question, on 21.4.2014. Accordingly, service engineer of Opposite Party No.1 visited the premises of complainant and checked the refrigerator and found that there was gas leakage problem which could be duly rectified by refilling the same, but the complainant did not allow the visiting service engineer of Opposite Party No.1 to rectify the said defect, rather he filed the present complaint. This fact has been deposed by Sh.Chitranjan Sahoo, Senior Manager of Opposite Party No.1  through his affidavit Ex.OP1/1 and the complainant could not rebut this evidence produced by Opposite Party No.1. This witness has also further deposed  that the complainant could not produce any evidence regarding any manufacturing defect in the refrigerator in question nor he produced any expert evidence in this regard. Then the complainant at the time of arguments in this case, filed  application for additional evidence to examine some expert namely Sh.Rohit Kapoor regarding the defect in the refrigerator in question. In the interest of justice that application was allowed and the complainant produced affidavit of one Rohit Kapoor Ex.CW1/A and his report Ex.CW2/A. This report is not much reliable particularly Sh.Rohit Kapoor did not mention his any qualification, whether he was holding any diploma or degree in the refrigeration trade nor he told the experience in this line, whether he has any experience in this regard. Further he checked the refrigerator of the complainant on 1.10.2015 for the first time when the warranty of the refrigerator in question has already expired on 21.4.2015. Moreover, he could not point out any particular manufacturing defect in the refrigerator in question. He has stated that there is some defect in underground pipes of the refrigerator. So he could not repair the refrigerator of the complainant, as such it is manufacturing defect. But this witness neither opened the refrigerator nor stated  as to in which pipe, there is defect in the refrigerator of the complainant. So, from the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant approached Opposite Party No.1 for the first time on 12.4.2015 with complaint reference No. 8463836004 and the engineer of Opposite Party No.1 visited the premises of the complainant and checked the refrigerator in question and found that there was problem of gas leakage in the refrigerator in question and the said defect could be rectified by refilling the gas in the refrigerator in question, but the complainant did not allow the service engineer of  Opposite Party No.1 to rectify the defect in refrigerator in question. So, from the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant has failed to prove on record any manufacturing defect in the refrigerator in question, which is beyond repair i.e. which can not be repaired. However, the complainant has approached Opposite Party No.1 on 12.4.2015 vide reference No. 8463836004 that was within warranty period, so Opposite Party No.1 was bound to rectify the defect, if any, in the refrigerator in question, within warranty period.
10. Resultantly, this complaint is disposed of with the directions to Opposite Party No.1 to rectify the problem, if any, in the refrigerator in question of the complainant and make it fully functional to the satisfaction of the complainant, without charging any amount from the complainant, within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.  Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 08.03.2016.                                                                (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                                                                                                            President

hrg                                                (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

                                                    Member                         Member